You are on page 1of 11

The Untold Story in Libya: How the West Cooked Up the Peoples

Uprising
Posted on September 3, 2011 by omasiali
As I write this, a new day is dawning in Libya. The peoples revolt against yet another tyrant is
unquestionably exciting, and the demise (political and/or otherwise) of Muammar Qaddafi will, of
course, be widely hailed. But barely below the surface something else is going on, and it concerns
not the Libyan people, but an elite. In reality, a narrowly-based Libyan elite is being supplanted
by a much older, more enduring one of an international variety.
The media, as is so often the case, has botched its job. Thus virtually all of its resources over the
past six months have gone into providing us with an entertainment, a horse race, a battle, with
almost no insight into the deeper situation..
***
Its true that Qaddafi, like manyperhaps a majority ofrulers in his region, was a thug and a
brute, if at times a comical figure. But one doesnt need to be an apologist for himnor deny the
satisfaction of seeing the citizenry joyously celebrating his ousterto demand some honesty about
the motives behind his removal. Especially when it comes to our own governments role in funding
it, and thus every Americans unwitting participation in that action.
Lets start with the official justification for NATOs launch of its bombing campaignfor without
that campaign, its highly improbable the rebels could ever have toppled Qaddafi. We were told
from the beginning that the major purpose of what was to be very limited bombingindeed, its
sole purposewas to protect those Libyan civilians rebelling against an oppressive regime from
massive retaliation by Qaddafi. Perhaps because of NATOs initial intervention, the feared
Qaddafi-sponsored, genocidal bloodletting never did occur. (At least, not beyond the military
actions one would expect a government to take when facing a civil war: after all, remember
General Shermans scorched earth policy in the US Civil War?). However, protecting civilians
apparently didnt generate sufficient public support for intervention, so we started to hear about
other purported reasons for it. Qaddafi was encouraging his soldiers tocommit mass rape! And
giving them Viagra! And condoms!
You cant make this sort of thing up. And yet thats just what the NATO crew didmade it up. The
media, always glad to have a sexy story, especially a sick sexy story, even a sick sexy story with no
evidence to back it up, covered this ad nauseum, but never bothered to find out if it was true.
Weve been expressing doubts about these claims, for a number of reasonsincluding logicfor
some time now. (For more on that, see this [3] and this [4] and this [5].) But its tough to
counterpoise hot-button issues with rationality. If you questioned the mass rape story, you were a

rape-enabler. If you pointed out that Qaddafi was being bombed for anything other than
humanitarian reasons, you were a Qaddafi-lover.
The media was so gullible that the professional disinformation guys went onto auto-pilot, recycling
tired old tropes that nobody ought to be buying anymore. For example, most news outlets reported
recently that Libya had fired a SCUD missile at the rebels.
That it didnt hit anything or kill anyone is not the point. Its a weapon of mass destruction that
Col. Qaddafi is willing to train on his own people, said one Western official.
If the effort to rally public opinion against Qaddafi centered on any one factor, it was fury over
Libyas purported role in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. As we
noted in a previous article [6], in the years since the conviction of a Libyan intelligence officer in
the tragedy, a chorus of doubts has grown steadily. The doubt is based on new forensic evidence
and research, plus subsequent claims by prosecution witnesses that their testimony was the result
of threats, bribes, or other forms of coercion. It is an ugly and disturbing story, not well known to
the larger news audience.
Yet Lockerbie has continued to touch nerves. In February, when Qaddafis Justice Minister turned
against him and became a rebel leader, he brought with him dynamite. Mustafa Mohamed Abud Al
Jeleil made the dramatic claim [8] that his ex-boss was the culprit behind the bombing of Pan Am
103. He asserted that he had proof of Qaddafi giving the direct order for the crime. This got
considerable media attention, though almost no news organizations followed up or reported that
Jeleil never did supply that proof. The Libyan convicted of the crime has consistently denied any
involvement. Nonetheless, his conviction in the case has had Qaddafi on the defensive for years
and working hard to prove to the West that he can be a good citizen. Part of this has entailed his
paying out huge sums in reparations.
***
From the beginning of the Libya saga in February until now, the NATO coalition has never
wavered from its initial declaration of humanitarian motives. And, to be sure, we may still learn of
horrible, previously-unknown atrocities by Qaddafi. Still, the United States and its allies have little
history of using their might strictly to protect civilians. If so, millions of South Sudanese,
Rwandans and others might not be in their graves.
Besides, with all the talk about Qaddafi harming his citizens, what about the effect of more than
7000yes, seven thousandNATO bombing runs? We heard constant reports about how Qaddafi
was facing charges of war crimes, with never a word about NATO. To learn the impact of this
massive unleashing, you had to be relying on Tweets from Libyans witnessing it, or visiting
obscure websites that shared eyewitness accounts.

Some Western military officials couldnt even be bothered to participate in the humanitarianism
charade. For example, the top British general explicitly stated [10] that the objective was really to
remove Qaddafi. Nobodyincluding the mediapaid much attention to this admission, perhaps
because it was already assumed to be the case.
Qaddafi should never be seen as a victimindeed, he has always been sleazy and monstrous in
various ways. But the US and its allies appear to have cared little about this, while being deeply
troubled by his role as a fly in the geopolitical ointment. A look at the long and complex historical
relationship between Qaddafi and the West begins to explain the true reason he had to go. It also
dovetails perfectly with a growing body of indications that Western elites encouraged and even
provoked the uprisingwhile tapping into deep discontent with the dictator.
***
Qaddafi has long been a thorn in the side of the Wests oil industry and their national security
apparatus. In the early 1970s he worked closely with Occidental Petroleum chairman Armand
Hammer in thwarting the ambitions of the oil majors. He was a leader in the boycott of Israel and
often cozied up to the Soviet Union.
Back in the 1980s, the Reagan Administration plotted for five years to get rid of Qaddafi and sent
18 U.S. warplanes in April 1986 to eliminate the Mad Dog of the Middle East. Reporter Seymour
Hersh actually did investigate the whys and wherefores of the ensuing bombings over Tripoli. (The
bombings killed the Libyan dictators daughter but obviously failed to achieve their primary
objective). Hershs piece in the February 22nd, 1987 New York Times Magazine, Target Qaddafi,
has striking echoes in the NATO attacks of 2011. It revealed:
- internal manipulation and deceit on the part of the White House to disguise its real intentions,
namely, to assassinate Qaddafi;
- Denials after the raid on Qaddafis compound that he had been a target, insisting that the
compound hit was a command-and-control building;
- The training of Libyan exiles, armed by Israel, to infiltrate Libya through Tunisia.
- The creation of a pretext for the attacks. In this case, it was the April 5, 1986 bombing of the La
Belle discotheque in West Berlin,a hangout of American servicemen. This bombing was blamed on
Libya based on intercepted communications, despite the explicit rejection of this claim by
Berlins then-chief of anti-terrorist police.
- The revelation, according to one intelligence official, that We came out with this big terrorist
threat to the U.S. government. The whole thing was a complete fabrication.

- As for real motives, Hersh discerned from a three-month investigation that the Reagan
Administration saw Qaddafi as being pro-Soviet, relentlessly anti-Israel, and a supporter of
extreme elements in Syria as opposed to the more moderate regimes in Jordan and Egypt.
- Qaddafis often-stated ambition to set up a new federation of Arab and Moslem states in North
Africa frightened policy makers about their access to minerals.
Its this that has to be considered as background for the true story of Libyathe one the Western
media
cannot,
or
will
not
now,
report.
Behind Libyas Spontaneous Revolution
What the media has so relentlessly characterized as the spontaneous uprising of February 2011
was hardly spontaneous. It began even before the Arab Spring itself commenced in Tunisia during
December of last yearand it was orchestrated by the West.
In October 2010, Qaddafis protocol chief, Nouri Al-Mesmari, arrived in France, purportedly for
medical treatment. But he had his family with him, and the declared reason for his trip was a cover
story. He almost immediately plunged into talks with the French and their intelligence service. He
argued that Qaddafi was weak. He pointed out breaches in Qaddafis national security shield that
made it possible to take him down. (More on this can be found on the subscription-newsletter site
[13] Africa Intelligence.)
In December, Mesmari was joined by three Western-educated Libyan businessmen who had years
earlier staged an unsuccessful revolt against Qaddafi. It didnt take long for the French government
of Nicolas Sarkozy to sign on to a covert effort to topple Qaddafi. There are multiple possible
reasons for this, including intra-European competition, notably with the Italians, who enjoyed a
particularly close relationship with Qaddafi and an inside track on Libyas oil. In addition, the
French were deeply concerned about illegal immigration from Arab and African countries,via
Libya, that they felt was tolerated or even encouraged by Qaddafi. The French began talking with
the British, who shared many of their concerns and a history of cooperation on covert projects.
In November, a French trade delegation, including representatives of multinational corporations,
traveled to Benghazi in Eastern Libya. That delegation has been characterized by Africa
Intelligences Maghreb Confidential as having included French military officials under commercial
cover, assessing the possibilities on the ground.
The New Years uprising in Tunisia, followed in rapid succession by those in other Arab states,
created a kind of perfect storm, arguably even a smoke screen for the popular revolt. (It is
interesting to note the above newsletters assertion that Mesmari paid a brief visit to Tunisia in
October on his way to France.)

Muammer Kadhafis [i.e., Muammar Qaddafis] chief of protocol, Nouri Mesmari, is currently in
Paris after stopping off in Tunisia. Normally, Mesmari sticks closely to his bosss side, so theres
some talk that he may have broken his long-standing tie with the Libyan leader.
Egypt followed quickly on Tunisias heels, and on February 16, just days after the dictator Hosni
Mubarak was toppled in neighboring Egypt, peaceful demonstrations began in Benghaziafter
calls went out on Facebook for people to take to the streets in protest over the arrest of a human
rights lawyer. (The lawyer, Fethi Tarbel, was quickly releasednews organizations do not appear
to have scrutinized who ordered Tarbel arrested, or exactly whythough this was the seminal
event that would ultimately lead to the end of Qaddafis regime.)
On February 27, a National Transitional Council, made up of politicians, ex-military officers, tribal
leaders, businessmen and academics, announced its launching in Benghazi as the rebel leadership.
Not surprisingly, no mention was made of the French back story.
The Italian intelligence services, intent on preserving that countrys advantageously close
relationship with Qaddafi, began trying to leak what was going on. (More on the extent of the
coziness between Libya and Italian oil companies, and between Qaddafi and Italian Prime Minister
Silvio Berlusconi here [16].) When it proved unable to stop the operation, the Italian government
seemingly decided to switch and try to head this particular parade, lest the spoils go to the others.
The United States was late to this affair, but determined to get its share of the picnic. The US has
been as nervous about Qaddafis relationship with Russias Putin as France was about his ties to
Italy.
CIA was ready with its own man and plan. As we previously noted [18], Khalifa Hifter, a former
Libyan army officer, had spent the past two decades living just down the road from CIA
headquarters, with no apparent source of income. In 1996, while a resident of Vienna, Virginia, he
organized a Benghazi-based revolt that failed. When the current uprising was sputtering in March,
CIA sent Hifter in to take command.
When the rebels were being routed, the United Nations Security Council approved a no-fly order
for Qaddafi. The NATO bombing began almost immediately, under the humanitarian label.
Before long, other European countries had covert elements in Libya. The British paper, The
Guardian, has just reported [20] the role of British special forces in coordinating the rebels on the
ground. This was denied by the UK government . But then another British paper, The Telegraph,
cited [21] UK defense sources saying special forces had been in Libya already for weeks, i.e., since
early August.)
For the first time, defence sources have confirmed that the SAS has been in Libya [22] for several
weeks, and played a key role in co-ordinating the fall of Tripoli.

Now that it is all over, expect details to emerge daily. For example, see this [23] from the Daily
Beast on the extent of US involvement behind the scenes, including:
[A]t NATO headquarters outside Brussels, the U.S.was intimately involved in all decisions about
how the Libyan rebels should be supported as they rolled up control of cities and oil refineries and
marched toward the capital, Tripoli.
NATOS Mare Nostrum
Ok, so certain Western powers wanted, really, really badly, to oust Qaddafi. But why exactly?
Frances intra-European competitive motive was certainly one factor. But there was more.
Back in 2007, European Union leaders were seriously toying with the idea of NATO-izing the
entire Mediterranean, turning it into the new mare-nostrum originally contemplated in Roman
days. In 2007, Frances President Nicholas Sarkozy invited 27 European Union heads of state to
launch a Mediterranean union. He also invited 17 non-EU Mediterranean countries to use, as
Britains Daily Telegraph [24] put it, imperial Romes centre of the world as a unifying factor
linking 44 countries that are home to 800 million people.
One leader did not buy in, however: Muammar Qaddafi. He claimed the scheme would divide
Africa and the Arab World. We shall have another Roman empire and imperialist design, he was
quoted as saying in July, 2008. There are Imperialist maps and designs that we have already
rolled up. We should not have them again.
Qaddafi was particularly angered [24] that an earlier plan, which contemplated building closer cooperation among a few southern European and North African states bordering the Mediterranean,
had been replaced with one which included the whole EU, the Middle Eastand Israelin the new
Union.
It is unbelievable that I would come to my own country and people and say that I have a union
with Israel. It is very dangerous, he said, referring to the possibility of the plan fomenting
jihadism throughout Europe, not just the Middle East.
Despite this insult, however, Qaddafi had been attempting for some time to get his country out of
the near-global embargo imposed after blame for the Lockerbie bombing was laid at Libyas feet.
And the West, for its part, had been largely in a great hurry to forgiveand to get access to
Libyas riches.
While Qaddafi was discussing with the Russians in 2007, for instance, the prospect of building a
Russian military base in Libya, hed also been busy rapidly repairing relations with other potential
allies. French President Sarkozy visited that year, and signed a number of agreements, including a
deal for France to build a nuclear-powered facility to desalinate ocean water for drinking. The next

year, Qaddafi signed a cooperation treaty with Italys Berlusconi. And American secretary of state
Condi Rice came calling in 2008, accelerating the thaw George W. Bush had avidly begun early in
his administration.
In recent years, Qaddafi was on such good behavior that U.S. officials showered him with the sort
of praise usually reserved for those officially deemed to be close allies. If that sounds unlikely, all
you need to do is watch this video [27] of Republican Sen. John McCain on an August 2009 visit to
Tripoliwith his buddy Joe Lieberman, known to most as a pro-Israel, pro-Iraq-war hawk
gushing about Qaddafi and his regime. Emerging from meetings, they evoked a spirit of friendship
and mutual respect, and endorsed the US providing defense equipment to that regime. (Ever the
political animal, in recent weeks, the very same McCain who led that delegation has turned to
criticizing Obama for not being willing to bomb Libya heavily enough.)
A cable [28] from the US embassy in Tripoli, released by WikiLeaks, confirms that on the 2009
visit,
Lieberman called Libya an important ally in the war on terrorism, noting that common enemies
sometimes make better friends, the cable continues. The Senators recognized Libyas
cooperation on counterterrorism and conveyed that it was in the interest of both countries to make
the relationship stronger.
This rapprochement was characterized by a land rush of Western corporations that had long
coveted their share of Libyas oil revenues. Leading the way was the investment bank Goldman
Sachs. Qaddafi and his advisers trusted Goldmans claims that it would turn handsome profits with
any funds entrusted to it. Yet Goldman managed to lose an astonishing 98 percent [6] of the funds,
which were the Libyan peoples sovereign wealth. No matter. Goldman was soon back with more
brilliant ideasincluding suggesting, at the height of the Wall Street crisis, that Qaddafi buy a
substantial stake in the Goldman firm itself.
Qaddafi was faced with these huge losses at the very time Libya was carrying a crushing obligation
of reparations for the Lockerbie bombing that had been pressed on Libya as a condition of its reemergence from years of isolation, and he began to worry about how he would pay for it all.
Keeping the Libyan population at a relatively high standard of living (compared certainly to
neighboring Egypt) was essential to his maintaining power. It was at this point that Qaddafi began
pressing [30] foreign oil companies to increase the royalties they pay, and the companies began
grousing about it.
Could this hardening of postures have contributed to the sudden decision to oust a man who had
worked hard to ingratiate himself with the West?
***

At least two factors appear to have come together to create an impossible situation for Qaddafi: (1)
The French, perhaps impatient with Qaddafis independence, and frustrated with his Italian
alliance, began considering whether they might effect a change of government in Libya. And (2)
the Arab Spring. Suddenly, a startling number of the thuggish Middle Eastern allies of the NATO
countries began to come under threat. For a number of U.S. Eastern Establishment types, at least,
these regional spasms of disaffection and bravery seemed to come as a genuine surprise. The
Council on Foreign Affairs produced articles titled What Just Happened? and Why No One Saw
it Coming, in the May/June issue of its Foreign Affairs magazine, dedicated to the New Arab
Revolt.
No one seemed to know for certain what was going to happen, although there was plenty of
Monday morning quarterbacking about how the Arab Spring was entirely predictable in light of
the world-wide financial meltdown in 2008-09 and a growing restiveness in the Arab world. (See
also our recent article [32] about a correlation between skyrocketing food prices and the revolts.)
But while it may take years to put the Arab Spring in its proper perspective, it surely had begun to
occur to foreign policy elites that NATOs plans for a militarized Mediterranean would be
susceptible to unraveling if Libyas unpredictable Qaddafi remainedunpredictable. Especially
with the NATO-allied dictator Mubarak on his way out and Egypt destabilized.
A mere glance at the map reveals the strategic location of Libya. Right next to Egypt. Large. Unlike
Egypt, full of oil. And of a particularly sought-after grade of sweet crude oil. (If you had
momentarily forgotten how incredibly important oil is to Western government and corporations,
consider this news item: Exxon Mobil reported second quarter profits of $10.7 billion, up 41
percent from the previous year.)
In other words, Libya is both sitting on gobs of oil and perfectly, strategically located for military
bases to protect that oil and the oil of nearby countries, including Saudi Arabia, whose citizens
have expressed hostility to the siting of American troops there. Almost nobody could stand
Qaddafi. So if he were pushed out, who would complain?, By getting behind the rebels (or, even
better, helping to create and fortify the rebels) the forces of the West might be able to have their
own Arab Spring.
What? Its All About Oil?
In an inexcusable affront to the public, the media (with notable exceptions such as The Guardian)
has largely waited until Qaddafi was destroyed to begin focusing on this incredibly obvious oil
factor. One example is a piece just published [35] by the New York Times. How useful is it to allow
the one-sided demonization of this man, and then, when he is on his way out, to begin saying, Oh,
by the way, it was always about oil?

The piece focuses on the rebels plans to favor the countries who backed them over those who
preferred a negotiated settlement with Qaddafi:
We dont have a problem with Western countries like Italians, French and U.K. companies,
Abdeljalil Mayouf, a spokesman for the Libyan rebel oil company Agoco, was quoted by Reuters as
saying. But we may have some political issues with Russia, China and Brazil.
Russia, China and Brazil did not back strong sanctions on the Qaddafi regime, and they generally
supported a negotiated end to the uprising. All three countries have large oil companies that are
seeking deals in Africa.
This feels like Iraq Redux, only with different players and, so far, a different outcome. In 2003,
Germany and Freedom-fries France refused to join the Coalition of the Willing in George W.
Bushs invasion of Iraq. Why? Because they had pending oil deals with Saddam Hussein.
There are other possible factors, including Qaddafis unique influence as an uncontrollable,
Castro/Chavez-style independent nationalist with influence throughout the region. Qaddafi was an
avid promoter of African unity, of governments that would remain free from the influence of the
major powers. He poured a lot of money into South Africa, for instance, when it was struggling to
free itself from Western influence after the fall of the apartheid regime there. As Qaddafi was going
down to defeat, the West began pressuring South Africa to turn over frozen Libyan funds. (Not
incidentally, theres more than $35 billion of frozen Libyan assets in the U.S., and a comparable
sum in Europe.)
African nationalism remains a big concern for Western mining, banking and industrial interests.
Though the people of Africa remain desperately poor, the continent is the earths richest potential
source of precious and strategic metals, minerals and resources of every stripe.
In hindsight, the Libyan revolution may be viewed as a clever effort to harness genuine domestic
discontent to a global competition for the resources necessary to sustain the industrial West as well
as newly emerging industrial countries like China, India and Brazil. Refracted this way, the whole
NATO involvement in Libya appears to be, at root, business as usual. As they say in law
enforcement, follow the money. In the midst of a severe fiscal crisis, Pentagon spending [37] alone
on Libya through the end of July was $896 million. Will everyone who believes that the Western
military establishment is spending such vast sums to further the aspirations of the Libyan
people, please raise their hands?
At this juncture, it seems realistic to expect the US and its allies to settle in, nice and comfortable,
on Libyan assets for a very long time. Anyone who doubts that might want to check out US
statements [38], not widely discussed, of intent for US troops to remain in Iraq well past the
original troop departure date. Or a proposal for the same thing in Afghanistansee this report [39]
about a desire to keep substantial military personnel there through 2024. Then do a little reading

on the potentially $1 trillion worth of minerals in Afghanistan which the US says it only recently
learned about. (Wink, wink.) As The New York Times reported [40] in June, 2010 (the story
generated little public reaction):
The previously unknown deposits including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical
industrial metals like lithium are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to
modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important
mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe.
An internal Pentagon memo, for example, states that Afghanistan could become the Saudi Arabia
of lithium, a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and BlackBerrys.
Some will say that ascribing solely selfish motives to Western liberators is too cynical. For one
thing, arent the rebels at least an improvement on Qaddafi in terms of human rights, liberties, and
so forth?
For a possible answer, its worth reading [42] the British journalist Patrick Cockburn. He nicely
sums up the craziness, brutality and internecine murder taking place in the rebels ranks without
proper Western media attention. They appear to have killed one or possibly two of their own
commanding generals on suspicion of treacheryor at least being partial to the wrong faction. For
example, weve been hearingin part via a seemingly well-informed individual inside Libyathat
the reason the rebels killed their own commander-in-chief General Abdul Fatah Younis was his
advocacy of negotiations with Qaddafi. If thats correctand these subjects need more reporting by
the news organizations there on the groundthen wed like to know what position all those
Western spooks took on the ouster and killing of this man.
Continuing on this score, we have the plight of black Libyans, generally among the poorest in the
country. Weve seen a steady stream of indications [44] that, almost by definition, anyone black in
Libya (many African migrant workers but also some Libyan citizens) has been lumped in with
Qaddafis non-Libyan African mercenaries, considered a suspected Qaddafi loyalist and therefore
targeted for harassment, physical violence and death.
Meanwhile, the rebels have released, en masse, prisoners linked to extremist Islamic movements.
And one analyst is currently asserting [45] that an Al Qaeda-linked figure is the new military
commander of post-Qaddafi Tripoli.
Heres another twist: The Libyan convicted in the Lockerbie bombing, released in 2009 from jail in
Scotland and allowed to return home for health reasons, is now, according to CNN, on his death
bed, said to be deprived of medicines due to the recent looting of Libyan pharmacies. Once the
rebels had consolidated their hold over Tripoli, CNN found Abdel Basset al-Megrahi [46]
comatose, and while he has consistently maintained his innocence, it is unlikely the world will ever

learn what he knows. With him and Qaddafi disappearing from the scene, any demand for a deeper
inquiry into the bombing will likely evaporate.
But where is the West in all of this? A leaked plan [47] for post-Qaddafi Libya shows how
elaborately involved NATO has been in the entire operation. It includes a carefully thought-out
proposal for avoiding the mistakes made in the Iraq occupationincluding embracing most of
Qaddafis security forces, and an initial occupying force resourced and supported by the United
Arab Emirates, with essentially no (visible) Western boots on the ground.
Doesnt this sound more and more like an invasion, for spoils? And one that could
notwithstanding lessons supposedly learnedquickly get very messy?

You might also like